“So we learn the #RussiaHacking “CIA intel” comes from disgruntled Senate Democrats in a “leak” to The Washington Post? Talk about “Fake News.” Pravda is alive and well in America. And so we wait for just one piece of empirical evidence (none forthcoming) that the Russian government had anything whatsoever to do with the devastating WikiLeaks evidence of Democrat criminality. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Only propaganda intended to delegitimize Donald Trump. These “Russian Hackers” clearly conspired with the same shadowy figures who released the YouTube video responsible for Benghazi. Watching the junk media push Obama’s and Democrats’ nonsensical “Putin-wanted-Trump-to-win” propaganda is like watching a parody on journalism.”
— Author, Lawyer, Conservative Activist J. Matt Barber
We are living in dangerous times, my friends, and as usual with these kinds of events, most of the danger comes from within our nation.
ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other Islamist extremists pose a very real, and very dangerous threat to our homeland. The threat these terrorist groups pose is not existential, but the threat we face from weak-kneed, power-hungry liberals most certainly is. The latest reminder of this threat to our national integrity comes to us from the most recent stories about President-elect Trump’s Russia connection.
Over the weekend, the liberal media was abuzz with the possibility that Russia may have interfered in the 2016 presidential election in an effort to get Donald Trump elected. The story first appeared in the New York Times and then appeared across almost every major media source in print and on TV.
Almost immediately the liberal media was ablaze with coverage of a story that they argued proved that Trump was a Putin-puppet and that the election was illegitimate. Sure, the Times (and their partner in journalistic crime, the Washington Post) couldn’t offer any proof of their accusations, citing only unnamed “sources” and cryptic unpublished “reports.” It adds up to a pile of hearsay without any evidence. The Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald (a liberal journo himself) reacted appropriately to the story by arguing “anonymous leaks… are no substitute for evidence,” and decrying both the Times and the Post for their journalistic prostitution.
But, as Greenwald points out and even the Washington Post was forced to acknowledge… the FBI is unwilling to draw the same conclusions that the CIA supposedly has.
Democratic lawmakers in the room, again and again, tried to pin the FBI official down on whether the bureau believed that Russia had a preference in who won the election.
“It was shocking to hold these [CIA] statements made about Russian intentions and activities, and to hear this guy basically saying nothing with certainty and allowing that all was possible,” said an official who attended the briefing. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.
It shouldn’t just be the fact that the FBI is contradicting the New York Times and the Washington Post on the Russia-Trump connection that bothers the average American reading the story. We should also be concerned with what Michael Sainato of the Observer points out: while all of these allegations are very serious… not one shred of proof has accompanied the accusations!
On December 9, the Post published a similar neo-McCarthyist article, once again relying on anonymous sources saying the Russian government interfered in the 2016 elections by hacking Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails, and giving them to WikiLeaks, all to help Trump.
“The key claims are based exclusively on the unverified assertions of anonymous officials, who in turn are disseminating their own claims about what the CIA purportedly believes, all based on evidence that remains completely secret,” reported Glenn Greenwald for the Intercept. “Critically, none of the actual evidence for these claims is disclosed; indeed, the CIA’s ‘secret assessment’ itself remains concealed.” Greenwald noted that The New York Times published a companion article to The Washington Post’s, but the Times said that the Republican National Committee (RNC) was also hacked and made no assertion that Russia’s intent was to support Trump. Both articles make frequent use of the word “believe” to compensate for the lack of any evidence cited.
The New York Times reported on December 11, “The C.I.A.’s conclusion does not appear to be the product of specific new intelligence obtained since the election, several American officials, including some who had read the agency’s briefing, said on Sunday. Rather, it was an analysis of what many believe is overwhelming circumstantial evidence—evidence that others feel does not support firm judgments—that the Russians put a thumb on the scale for Mr. Trump, and got their desired outcome.” This conclusion is based on speculation, saying the RNC was hacked, but those emails were never released. The RNC denies ever being hacked, and if emails were obtained from the RNC at the same time they were hacked from the DNC, those emails would likely be more benign, as Trump’s Republican primary victory at this time was secure. The FBI and CIA are conflicted about these conclusions. The CIA is like likely to publicly hint behind anonymous sources and a secret assessment as to what the motives for the hacks were, without providing the public with the evidence used as a basis for those speculations.
The demand for evidence and an insistence to remain skeptical on claims from unnamed sources was echoed by several journalists and civil rights activists.
Over at the Hill, Joseph R. Murray II agrees, arguing that the Democrat Party is using Vladimir Putin to delegitimize President-elect Trump.
Today, there is no evidence — other than a “secret” CIA assessment — that that the Russians interfered and the fact that Hillary won the popular vote undermines their influence was successful. It was the intervention of our founding fathers in the electoral process that created a Trump presidency, not Kremlin cadets.
So, despite the onslaught of headlines then warning and now lamenting a Russian hack, there is no proof. We have no reason to believe that our election was rigged. All we have is are the words of professional politicians that have made careers out of lying to the American public for their own personal gain.
Implicating Russia is the last stand of the Old Guard; it is all it has left. Trump has won, the American people have spoken. This is one bell Obama, Hillary, or Putin cannot unring.
How can we take the liberal concerns about the Trump-Russia connection seriously when they won’t even offer a single shred of evidence? Everything they point to comes from anonymous sources, and “secret” reports. Meanwhile, when conservatives were railing on about the Benghazi scandal, or Clinton’s Unsecure servers, they were waving verified facts, eyewitness (and not anonymous) testimony, and actual proof and Democrats simply shrugged their shoulders and said it was just a ‘conspiracy.’
The Trump-Russia witch-hunt, much like the “fake news” conniption, and the popular vote/recount effort kerfuffle are all simply outgrowths of the very undemocratic Democrat Party’s post-election temper tantrum.